You are on page 1of 2


A. Was the policy worth it, after all the damage it has caused?
Post 9/11 proved to be one of the toughest times in world history. Thats why war on terror was
treated as the realistic form security to combat imminent and impending global threats. But after a decade
and mores worth of trying to ensure the global security, it has waged damages in all forms across the
globe. To what extent can there be a blind spot so as to justify such damages, collateral damages more so,
are really worth it? When there is a complete rollback of basic social services made by possible by
neoliberal policies? When there are no more soldiers and preconceived terrorists to battle at the field?
When there are no more human beings wholl be ripped off their lives at the cost of the protection of state
and of the world in general? No, there is no reason in this world that could justify that such damages were
worth it. For only the United States created its own monster so as to back-up its interventions in different
countries and propagate its imperialist ambitions to the world. For only the United States can put market
well-being over social well-being. For only the United States can create such global damage in order to
reassure, reaffirm and retain its hold as the global super power. So no, it was not worth it after all. All
damages that such war on terror made did not, not even an inch, made the imminent threat of terrorism
go away for until the United States cannot realize that violation of the social contract is the most pressing
issue here, such threats will never cease.
B. Is preemptive strike war in itself?
What the United States staged in Iraq was not pre-emptive strike. It was war, probably one of the
subtlest, but it was war. It was a war perfectly staged so as to create the atmosphere of fear and despair, so
as to justify that such intervention was for the best not only for Iraq but for the whole world as well. It was a
war against innocent civilians and tagged terrorists not to mention countless of US soldiers treated as
collateral damage in order to propagate such doctrine of imperial interests and affliction. It was as if staging
a war against humanity. It was not pre-emptive rather it was planned towards the propagation of neoliberal
global order. It was a strategy not to combat terrorism but to stage a war against welfare and social
contract. It was a war and still is. It only pre-empts emerging nations so as to keep them at bay and still put
in check the extent of the United States and it being a global superpower.

C. A critique of the policy and how it has satisfied the notion: "There are no victors in war, only
losers in varying degrees."
From the misappropriation of funds to the damages made, it is fair enough to say that no good ever
came out of such war on terror. It only degraded the kind of life we as human beings deserve. We are all
losers here. We as citizens are slowly losing our right to accessible basic social services. Nation states are
losing lives, properties and funds just to satisfy the monsters made by a market oriented superpower
whose only looking out for its own interests. There is nothing but losses here. War on terror was a
doctrine made to ensure global security but after a decade more, it only made new and emerging forms of
global insecurity. War on terror is not a war on terrorism. It is actually a war against the United States
colossal need and want to be the only global superpower.